Angel Tarragon wrote:Hi Buttmonkey!! I have been considering buying into C&C myself...if it is not too much of an imposition do you think you start a thread about what you like and dislike about the system?

As requested:

Things I Like/Love
• If you have played 1E, Classic, or any other version of old school D&D, you pretty much know how to play C&C. The class and race descriptions are somewhat different, but they are recognizable and will only take a few minutes of reading to get you up to speed. C&C is the game you played in the 80s, only streamlined. The primary difference/innovation is the SIEGE engine. SIEGE is a universal mechanic that resolves the success of anything a PC might try that has a significant chance of failure (if the chance is insignificant, you don't roll and the PC is successful). DMs have always had to come up with some way to resolve the likelihood of a PC being successful at something not covered by a rule (e.g., is a PC successful at grabbing a rope as the PC falls into a pit; can the PC push over a heavy statue; can the PC swim across the raging stream without drowning). Usually, that is by some sort of DM fiat ("Okay, I figure you've got a 15% chance of pulling that off. Roll percentile dice."). SIEGE adds a little more structure to that process. It ties all attempts to do something to an attribute check and gives bonuses to checks using attributes the PC has developed (e.g., if a PC has developed his strength attribute especially, the PC would get a +6 on strength checks). 5E handles things very similarly. I believe DCC RPG does as well. The idea of tying everything to attribute checks and having the GM decide on a difficulty class is a strong one. Selecting a difficulty class is frequently as simple as making it equal to the hit dice or level of an opposing creature (e.g., if the PC is trying to make a dexterity check to sneak past a 3 HD monster, the GM would probably set a challenge level of 3). Saving throws are handled the same way. Spell saves are tied to attribute checks where the DC is based on the level/hit dice of the caster. Overall, this system eliminates the need for all sorts of clunky subsystems and streamlines the rules.

• The game explicitly leaves a lot of room for the GM to adjudicate things. This is both a feature and a downside depending on the situation and the specific GM. Some GMs seem to despise the open-ended nature of some of the material. They view it as a design flaw that a rules question is not addressed or answered in the rules. Such rules gaps have been brought to the attention of the game's designers and frequently remain unresolved. The designers say that is because they intentionally left things vague so the GM can run the game the way the GM wants. Critics say they can always house rule, so answer the damn questions already. Personally, I haven't found the gaps to be significant and have never had any problems deciding on a ruling that works for me. In many instances, I also think critics are doing a poor job of reading the rules where an answer is actually there, but that is not always the case.

• OSR material is easily convertible on the fly to C&C.

• TLG has released some pretty inspiring material outside their core rule books. Their Codex series is shaping up really nicely. There is a ton of useful material in Bluffside: City on the Edge.

• The core rules are lightweight and compact. All you need is the Players Handbook and Monsters & Treasure. There is a Castle Keepers Guide, but it is not core. It is filled with optional rules. I use very, very little from the CKG.

• Because of C&C's rules lite nature, about the only time I ever have to crack a book open during play is to consult a spell description. There is no need for a DM screen. There are no attack charts or saving throw tables. All of that is handled intuitively based on hit dice, AC, and class/level-based bonus to hit. I did make a short cheat sheet of combat modifiers (-X to AC if blind, -Y to AC if prone, etc.) that I keep on a clip board with my game session notes. Overall, the game is a joy to run and really, really smooth.

Cons

• There are occasionally rules gaps. As noted above, whether that is a design flaw depends on the reader. Personally, I think the game runs just fine as-is. Any gaps are easily fillable on the fly.

• I don't think the C&C modules are always the best out there. I haven't seen anything for C&C that rivals the awesomeness of something like Anomalous Subsurface Environment, for example. I don't run many modules anyway, so this isn't a significant issue. Plus, anything I would ever want to run in the OSR family is easily convertible on the fly, so the quality of the in-house modules is a pretty irrelevant concern to my mind. The value of C&C is the game itself, not the published adventures.

• The encumbrance system sucks. Just like it does in most OSR games. The only decent encumbrance system I have ever seen was for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. As with any version of D&D I have ever played, I ignore C&C's encumbrance rules and eyeball the character sheets every once in a while to see whether a PC is hauling around enough junk to matter. I have never felt like it mattered.

• C&C has way too many armor types (e.g., Greek ensemble, steel breastplate, etc.). That is a simple fix. I just pared it down to the traditional armor types from 1E and went on my merry way.

Neutral Issues to Keep in Mind

• C&C does not model high level play identically to OSR D&D. Running the D series modules using C&C would be a very different experience than using 1E. This is because saving throws do not scale the way they did in 1E. A high level PC in 1E is going to have a good saving throw to resist magic spells. Not so much in C&C. The DC for a spell save in C&C will be based on the HD or level of the caster. If the caster has a high HD/level, the saving throw is going to difficult despite the PC having a high level, too (actually, the PC's high level makes the save difficult as opposed to damn near impossible for a lower level PC). If you are looking for a 1E clone at high levels, C&C isn't what you are looking for. That doesn't mean C&C sucks. It just does saving throws differently at high level. Some adherents see this as a big plus. It ensures saving throws at high level are still scary.

• Some critics have complained unendingly about typos in the TLG materials. That issue has largely been resolved, despite some readers refusal to acknowledge the progress. The core books are certainly in great shape. Some of the non-core books have had issues recently. The typo level varies by book. TLG could definitely benefit from better editing. I think the core books are edited as well as what you would find from other publishers at this point.

I don't have time to get into it more right now, but that is the gist of it, I think. If I think of stuff to add, I will post it later.

• C&C handles balancing demihumans versus humans much better than D&D's level limits and class restrictions. C&C doesn't have any level limits or class restrictions (Yay! More Fun!), so you can have a 25th level gnome paladin if the PC survives that long. Instead of imposing race-class restrictions, C&C gives humans more bonuses on attribute checks. Each PC designates certain attributes as prime attributes. Being prime reflects a PC's efforts to develop that attribute to their maximum ability. For example, a PC's intelligence would be prime if the PC studied and did lots of brain teasers (that is an example I'm making up, not an example directly from the PHB). So, two PCs might have a 16 intelligence, but the PC who does the brain teasers would have intelligence as prime. Attributes checks involving prime attributes get a +6 bonus to the roll (a fairly significant bump using a d20). Humans get to designate 3 prime attributes. Demihumans only designate 2 prime attributes. So, you can play a dwarf and get infravision and the other racial bonuses, but you won't have the same diversity of competence on attribute checks and saves that a human gets. I find this infinitely more palatable than D&D's race-class limitations or imposing an XP penalty on the demihuman. It acknowledges that balancing the races is a reasonable need and solves the problem neatly.

Another Downer

• Some C&C players aren't happy with the default method of calculating a difficulty class (called a challenge class in C&C). C&C has the GM assign a challenge level to everything. As a general rule of thumb, a challenge level of 1-5 represents a fairly easy challenge that carries a significant risk of failure. 5-10 reflects a moderately difficult challenge. 11-15 reflects a hard challenge. Et cetera. To calculate the challenge class (i.e, DC), you add the challenge level to a challenge base. The challenge base is 12 if the relevant attribute is prime and 18 if the relevant attribute is non-prime. For example, let's say a PC is making an intelligence save to resist a spell cast by a level 3 opponent. If intelligence is prime for that PC, the challenge class (DC) would be 15 (challenge base of 12 plus 3 for the challenge level). If intelligence was not prime, the challenge class would be 21 (challenge base of 18 + challenge class of 3). When the PC rolls a d20 to save, the PC would add its level as well as any relevant attribute bonus to the d20 roll. For example, if the PC's intelligence score is 18, it would have an attribute bonus of +3 (much like a PC with a strength score of 17 would have a +2 bonus in 1E). If our hypothetical PC is 6th level and has an 18 intelligence, the PC would add 9 to the roll (+6 for the level and +3 for the intelligence bonus). At higher levels, the bonuses can get pretty large (we're not talking bounded accuracy like in 5E (assuming I understand that term correctly)). Note that the +6 bonus a PC gets for a prime attribute is reflected in the challenge base (12 versus 18 depending on whether the attribute is prime). It's all pretty simple in practice. As noted at the beginning of this novel-length paragraph, some C&C players think 12 and 18 are too high for the challenge base because it makes attribute checks too difficult. The easy fix is to simply lower the challenge bases. I have never had a problem with the RAW, so I haven't adjusted them. I've heard of some people abandoning C&C because the issue bothers them insufferably. I suppose there is a point where someone finds playing another game more pleasing than house-ruling C&C.

Neutral Thoughts on the SIEGE Mechanic

• I'm pretty new to 5E, but I believe it also ties general task resolution to attribute checks, but uses simpler math. Rather than messing around with challenge bases and primes versus non-primes, I believe 5E just tells the DM to assign a difficulty class (DC) for the PC's attempted act, typically setting it somewhere between 1 and 20. A really easy task might have a DC of 2 (95% chance of success). A very difficult task might have a DC of 20 or even higher. I am attracted to that degree of simplicity. It harkens back to the DM fiat method I always used with OSR D&D. Assuming I understand the 5E method correctly, it makes a significantly different design choice than C&C. A C&C PC gets better at most attribute checks on a linear basis by adding the PC's level to its attribute check rolls. Thus, a 20th level PC would add 20 to its attribute checks in most circumstances. This reflects the idea that a 20th level PC is pretty damn heroic. 5E adds the PC's proficiency bonus instead, which is generally a much lower number as a PC goes up in levels. This veers back toward C&C percentages due to 5E's generally lower DCs (i.e., a 5E PC may not add as much to its attribute check roll, but the DC is also probably lower than it would be in C&C, so it's a net wash in the end). 5E seems to substitute skills for primes. Thus, a 5E PC with a religion skill would get a bonus on attribute checks that involve religion. In C&C, a PC with a prime in intelligence or wisdom, might get a similar bonus on checks involving religion depending on whether the GM felt the relevant attribute for the check was intelligence or wisdom. Overall, 5E seems to do much the same thing as C&C with respect to general task resolution, but the underlying math is somewhat simpler and involves smaller numbers. I'd be interested in seeing a statistical analysis of the differences. It may turn out that percentage likelihood of success is very close regardless of system or there might be big divergences depending on the particular checks and on PC level. At the end of the day, both systems are using the same basic idea, but implementing it in somewhat different ways. I'm not sure which is better. I suspect that I could play a ton of C&C and 5E and end up happy with how each game handles attribute checks. It's not an either-or situation. Both games can be great.

Which Leads to Another Possible Negative for C&C

• Some C&C players think the rules are insufficiently clear about when a PC's level is added to the PC's attribute check roll. Personally, I've never found this to be a problem at all, but some players are really persnickety on this point. It's one of those rules gap situation I mentioned above. In some cases, I think the rules actually are clear and the players don't have a good grasp of the RAW. In other cases, the RAW are absolutely vague. I think it's easy to fill the gap and not difficult at all, but if you like your rules pinned down firmly without a need for adjudication by the GM, this might be a concern. I have to admit that one thing I really liked when starting to read the 5E rules was the remarkable clarity of the rules. WotC did a really nice job putting together the 5E rules set (even if you don't like 5E, you have to admit the rules are a marvel of clarity by comparison to most D&D-based games). I think it is reasonable to choose a really clear rules set over a rules set that leaves a lot of room open for interpretation for the GM. I'm pretty comfortable either way when it comes to C&C and 5E. You ultimately have to decide what works best for you. But I would also point out that C&C is vastly clearer than 1E (compare and contrast initiative and surprise, for example). I think we all had a blast with 1E (and many still do!), so I have a hard time understanding why the limited grey areas in C&C are game-destroying. But that's me. Play whatever game makes you happy. A good GM should be able to run any old school game (or similarly-minded newer game) and have a blast doing it.

Edited to correct SIEGE terminology and a math error.

Last edited by Buttmonkey on Fri May 29, 2015 2:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

• C&C bumps up the spell selection for illusionists significantly. TLG added a bunch of new illusionist spells starting with the 4th or 5th printing of the PHB (I'm pretty sure it was the 5th, but I'm not 100% sure). Among other things, illusionists can now cast cure light wounds! That drives some people nuts, but I think it's awesome. The PC gets a saving throw. If the PC makes the save, the spell doesn't do anything. If the PC fails, it is healed. I've always treated this as a placebo effect. TLG has been explicit that it is not intended as a placebo effect, but is instead actual magical healing. I like my interpretation better, so I go with mine. If you like illusionists, you will love what C&C has to offer.

• The C&C monk is changed quite a bit from its 1E roots. It is now a hand-to-hand combat meat shield. it still has some of the quirky class abilities, but they are now tied to constitution-based abilities and stuff like deflecting missile weapon attacks. The weird stuff like talking with plants has been eliminated. The C&C monk is a front line fighter with gobs of hit points and decent AC (unlike 1E, the C&C monk gets to add its dex bonus to AC).

• C&C uses ascending AC. I can't believe I forgot to mention that earlier. I view that as a big plus, but I understand why some people dislike any deviation from descending.

• C&C is very flexible, so it holds up well to house-ruling. I've never played 3.X or Pathfinder, but I am told tweaking the RAW here and there can have problematic unintended consequences. That is unlikely to be a problem with C&C.

The problem with C&C is not the absolute, but the relative scaling of difficulties.
Let's compare how 5e and C&C behave:
1) 5e, assume both attacker and defender have the same Proficiency bonus and the same attribute modifiers: DC=8, i.e. there's a 65% probability of success.

2) C&C, assume both attacker and defender have the same level; if the defender has a Prime, the DC varies from 15 (for a -3 on ability score) to 9 (for a +3), i.e. from a 30% to a 60% chance of success.
However, and here's the biggest problem, if he hasn't a Prime, the DC varies from impossible (18+3=21, unachievable as 20 is not an automatic success, at least in the last iteration of the rules I read) to 15 (+3 on ability score), i.e. 30% at most.
(And the rules are absolutely not clear whether one should factor the Prime of the attacker also in the DC; the CKG seems to suggest "yes", the PHB is silent on this and other matters.) Obviously not everyone will have the luxury of a +3, and demihumans only have 2 Primes, with the obvious consequences.
As a wizard's level increases, the damage in C&C increases like in AD&D; but whereas in the latter the saving throws improve independently of the attacker, so they automatically mitigate the effects of spells, in C&C it doesn't happen, leading to dynamics which are completely different from any version of D&D, typically involving the death of the target. Consider that the damage for an average fireball is 3.5*level of the caster, whereas the hit point average for a wizard is 2.5*level of the caster. So a wizard target of an attacker of the same level must rely on initiative (which is totally random) or have a chance which can go as low as 15% to survive (if Dex is not prime, and hasn't a Dex bonus, which isn't as far fetched a case as it seems.) While this is cool for NPCs, it isn't so much for PCs (I had a 10th level wizard in my party insta-killed because he lost initiative.) Frank Mentzer warns in the Companion set to limit the damage of mass damage spells to 20d6 for exactly this reason (even considering that saves in D&D at high level are much better than in C&C.)

As a corollary to 2), it means that one must be very careful not to make attackers of a (even little) higher level than the PCs, because each level of difference subtracts a 5% from the chance of success (and can easily trigger an autofail in case of nonPrimes). In contrast, the Proficiency bonus in the 5e progression changes every 4 levels, so this allows the DM a much wider choice in encounter planning. The 3e system had a similar property, i.e. a less steep DC progression.

I always wondered how much thought was put into the system, considering that it is sold as the "Rosetta Stone" of D&D-alike games. This statement can't be farther from the truth of what actually happens in play; when the probabilities involved are generally low, i.e. in the 1-4 range, C&C behaves more or less like other D&D-alikes, but beyond that, the game takes a life of its own, which after many years of play, and attempts at mid to high level campaigns, I have found really distasteful. If you try running Tomb of Horrors with C&C you are guaranteeing a TPK; whereas I have converted it to 5e, and it was a fun romp. 5e seems to be much more capable at reproducing the dynamics of AD&D at all level ranges.

Honestly, with 5e on the market now, a game like C&C is a hard sale. As soon as I bought the 5e books and played a few games with my players, the unanimous verdict was to switch to 5e.
And I have sold my C&C books.

Last edited by rabindranath72 on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are welcome!
If you are interested in C&C and want to avoid those problems, you can use this system:

1) The starting DCs for Prime and non Prime are 8 and 12, respectively (vs 12 and 18). Or equivalently, the base DC is 12, if you have a Prime add +4
2) Add 1/2 level instead of full level.

It can be shown mathematically that such a change provides a progression quite similar to the 3e one, which works remarkably well.
But then you might question the whole exercise: the theoretical point of a game like C&C is to have something simple to run. If you start removing the core mechanics...

I wonder why they went with the SIEGE system when the 3e system works well; after all C&C is based on the OGL, so they could have used those mechanics freely. Seems to me a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water

rabindranath72 wrote:2) C&C, assume both attacker and defender have the same level; if the defender has a Prime, the DC varies from 15 (for a -3 on ability score) to 9 (for a +3), i.e. from a 30% to a 60% chance of success.
However, and here's the biggest problem, if he hasn't a Prime, the DC varies from impossible (18+3=21, unachievable as 20 is not an automatic success, at least in the last iteration of the rules I read) to 15 (+3 on ability score), i.e. 30% at most.
(And the rules are absolutely not clear whether one should factor the Prime of the attacker also in the DC; the CKG seems to suggest "yes", the PHB is silent on this and other matters.) Obviously not everyone will have the luxury of a +3, and demihumans only have 2 Primes, with the obvious consequences.

Hi Antonio.

I'm a bit confused by the above paragraph.

Combat in C&C is simply a d20 roll + bonus to hit to an equal or better number for the opponent's armor class.

1st level fighter rolls a d20 +1 bth and +1 for weapon specialization against an orc.
If he has a STR bonus, he can add this as well.

So he need only roll a 13 or better to hit.

Rhu.

Last edited by Rhuvein on Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

rabindranath72 wrote:2) C&C, assume both attacker and defender have the same level; if the defender has a Prime, the DC varies from 15 (for a -3 on ability score) to 9 (for a +3), i.e. from a 30% to a 60% chance of success.
However, and here's the biggest problem, if he hasn't a Prime, the DC varies from impossible (18+3=21, unachievable as 20 is not an automatic success, at least in the last iteration of the rules I read) to 15 (+3 on ability score), i.e. 30% at most.
(And the rules are absolutely not clear whether one should factor the Prime of the attacker also in the DC; the CKG seems to suggest "yes", the PHB is silent on this and other matters.) Obviously not everyone will have the luxury of a +3, and demihumans only have 2 Primes, with the obvious consequences.

Hi Antonio.

I'm a bit confused by the above paragraph.

Combat in C&C is simply a d20 roll + bonus to hit to an equal or better number for the opponent's armor class.

1st level fighter rolls a d20 +1 bth and +1 for weapon specialization against an orc.
If he has STR as a prime, he can add this bonus to hit as well.

So he need only roll a 13 or better to hit.

Rhu.

Hi Rhu,
I am talking about the saving throw mechanics, so "attacker" should be read as either "spellcaster" or in general "monster with some special ability that triggers a save." The CKG (at least the 1st printing I had) assumed that also the attacker factored-in its Prime attribute, making saves even more difficult; but the 2nd printing PHB didn't have any of those stipulations.

Is that about Str Prime in combat a new rule? My 2nd printing of the PHB didn't assume you add +6 to hit if Str is Prime I still have the pdf could you point me to the rule? Just out of curiosity, I am not likely to ever play C&C anymore, but it seems like a huge boost to combat ability (too big IMO.) Also the "add +6" is not really stated in the PHB, where the 12/18 rule is stated for saves and ability checks (and combat is not an ability check.)

As to adding STR bonus to attack roll, that is explained in the combat section in 2 different paragraphs ~ under sample combat round and under melee combat. I think I'm looking at the 2nd print - pages 114 and 116.

Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

rabindranath72 wrote:I always wondered how much thought was put into the system, considering that it is sold as the "Rosetta Stone" of D&D-alike games. This statement can't be farther from the truth of what actually happens in play; when the probabilities involved are generally low, i.e. in the 1-4 range, C&C behaves more or less like other D&D-alikes, but beyond that, the game takes a life of its own, which after many years of play, and attempts at mid to high level campaigns, I have found really distasteful. If you try running Tomb of Horrors with C&C you are guaranteeing a TPK; whereas I have converted it to 5e, and it was a fun romp. 5e seems to be much more capable at reproducing the dynamics of AD&D at all level ranges.

Honestly, with 5e on the market now, a game like C&C is a hard sale. As soon as I bought the 5e books and played a few games with my players, the unanimous verdict was to switch to 5e.
And I have sold my C&C books.

I think that is a fair criticism of C&C based on how it has been marketed at times. As you note and I also discussed above, C&C does not replicate 1E D&D play at high levels. The games just don't scale the same. If someone is looking for a retroclone to substitute for 1E across the board, C&C is not the right game. However, if you judge C&C for what it is (as opposed to what some people want to be), it has a lot going for it. I'm not suggesting you are making a straw man argument. The game has indeed been marketed as a Rosetta Stone and can justifiably be critiqued on that basis. The Rosetta Stone marketing is unfortunate. That marketing reflects the fact you can use materials from various editions of D&D with predominately on-the-fly conversion. That part is true. But the scaling as levels go up means you probably wouldn't want to use high level materials for D&D without reconsidering the balance of a lot of the encounters.

I guess my point is that I wish people would judge C&C for what it is, not for what it isn't. It is a great game on its own. It is a lousy game for running the D series of 1E modules as-is. Play something else (e.g., 1E) if you are looking for a game to run high level published modules. But if you want to run your own material, C&C can really shine. Spellcasting monsters and NPCs are scary as hell at high level. Part of the play style for C&C at high levels includes coming up with plans to deal with those opponents. Buff the party, get sneaky, target the spellcasters, etc. Now, if you don't like having to tailor play to take into account the dangerousness of high level/HD opponents, that's completely legitimate and, I think, a fairer criticism of C&C.

Very nice summary overall and I have seen quite a few C&C people going to 5e lately so don't feel bad about selling your books, rabindranth72. The only thing I have to add is that C&C is one of those strange cases where I like the game but really have no love for the company behind it. While I do like C&C I am going more and more to 5e with C&C only being broken out for beginning gamers.

Mr Dark wrote:Very nice summary overall and I have seen quite a few C&C people going to 5e lately so don't feel bad about selling your books, rabindranth72. The only thing I have to add is that C&C is one of those strange cases where I like the game but really have no love for the company behind it. While I do like C&C I am going more and more to 5e with C&C only being broken out for beginning gamers.

No I don't feel bad at all, rest assured
I made the conscious decision of using 5e for most of our games (although 3.0 did see quite a lot of use in our last campaign; I still like it, core books only, though.)
I am also planning to return to house-ruled 4e (i.e. using the 13th Age combat rules, and re-interpreting the powers according to the latter.)
For beginning gamers, I go straight to Mentzer Basic and Expert; can't get simpler than that, and most importantly, it's true D&D
And yeah, I don't particularly enjoy the people behind the company, whose philosophy seems to be "it's not a bug, it's a feature" to all criticism levied towards the game. I have pretty much decided with my wallet whether to give them credit or not